https://youtu.be/-QRFeZngTuY

Curious what you think of this guy. He criticises pretty much all

current Buddhist schools, even most Theravada and claims they’re on

false paths. In other videos he mentions Daniel Ingram, Angelo, Delson

Armstrong and Frank Yang by name and calls them deluded. He advocates

following the early suttas and nothing else, saying we can’t deviate

from the Buddha’s words etc. He has another channel where he reads from

the suttas.

Daniel responded and wants to have an interview with him



Soh replied:

many of those who criticise daniel ingram and frank yang and angelo dont understand the anatta insight in the first place

im not sure about what insight delson has

and most teachers, even well known vipassana and theravada teachers lack the anatta insight as explained in https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/12/vipassana-must-go-with-luminous.html

and this is key insight to entering the noble path, ending of self view and the first three fetters, and the key insight for liberation

but i agree that arahantship is a delusional claim. it is at most stream entry

explained very nicely in https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/comments/igored/insight_buddhism_a_reconsideration_of_the_meaning/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf%20

and https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/08/insight-buddhism-reconsideration-of.html

john tan and i likes that article very much. john even added it into his AtR AI bot

as for not going against suttas, i agree one should not go against suttas

don't invent stuff

but i'm also not a sectarian theravadin that is fundamentalist about only

following suttas and disregarding anything 'mahayana' and 'vajrayana'

in fact i would say i very much appreciate the mahayana and vajrayana teachings

and follow their teachings

also, as thich nhat hanh said, the point about mahayana and nagarjuna is not to go against the suttas, in fact nagarjuna never quoted mahayana sutras. he only quoted pali canon. his aim was to correct erroneous views people developed that deviated from the suttas. -- this is in the newly published book that yin ling shared on Nagarjuna and Madhyamaka by Thich Nhat Hanh: https://www.amazon.com/Cracking-Walnut-Understanding-Dialectics-Nagarjuna/dp/1952692466/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1KL7T3NQJAXJ4&keywords=cracking+the+walnut&qid=1704538940&sprefix=crac%2Caps%2C1461&sr=8-1

likewise, kyle dixon also said before, the purpose of mahayana teachings is a corrective to the wrong views of the hinayana sects that misunderstood the teachings of buddha in the suttas

i am not a fundamentalist sutta follower but i also believe sutta, mahayana sutras, vajrayana tantras and so forth, they can all be integrated in one's understanding and there is no need to 'choose' the suttas over the other teachings

but i do not believe in reinventing teachings and terms by the buddha, on what liberation, stream entry, arahantship and so on mean

also see this writing by John Tan: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2016/07/what-is-authentic-buddhist-teaching.html - What is an Authentic Buddhist Teaching?

as for first bhumi (aka Mahayana stream entry), Kyle Dixon recently shared a quote:

Jamgon Mipham Rinpoche:

Then, at the time of the supreme quality on the path of joining, one realizes that since the perceived does not exist, neither does the perceiver. Right after this, the truth of suchness, which is free from dualistic fixation, is directly realized. This is said to be the attainment of the first bhūmi.

---

Mr. C: "What I find interesting is that many of these so called fundamentalists don’t agree that nagarjuna has right view. They outright reject that he’s in line with the suttas whereas Mahayana states they’re compatible

I see people stating for example that the Buddha didn’t discuss emptiness, just that all phenomena are not-self, but not even claiming outright that there is no self

Of course I disagree with those kind of claims

Soh:

kyle dixon has quoted many suttas talking about the emptiness of all dharmas and their illusory nature

its clear to me that the pali sutta is completely consistent with mahayana emptiness, and inconsistent with the 'little atmans' of dharmas that late abhidhamma commentators introduced into the teachings

i recommend going through part 1 to 4 of all kyle dixon's compilations that i made

has many very clear writings

in fact john tan find his dharmawheel writings to be the best among all he trained the atr AI bot with

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2023/11/a-compilation-of-some-of-kyle-dixons.html

as for those that say buddha taught not self but not no self, i already explained why that is wrong in https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2011/10/anatta-not-self-or-no-self_1.html

and kyle dixon also painstakingly explained so many times throughout reddit

because so many people are infected with this thanissaro ideology

it is a novel, but wrong idea of what buddha meant with anatman

ok one of my messages above was removed

because the facebook AI dumbly thought my anatta: not-self or no self was about porn and sexual stuff

i was saying i explained why this whole anatman is only not self but not no self wrong ideology has infected so many people online via thanissaro's novel ideology

it is also very wrong

and very misleading

in fact recently i posted another post, i dont think i should post more links here now lest facebook remove it again

but you can search on google or my blog:

Thanissaro, Consciousness without Surface, No Self vs Not-Self https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2023/12/thanissaro-consciousness-without.html

it's a post made in december 2023

many of those who claims this also happen to fall into eternalist views about awareness

it's not surprising and their practice of turning anatman into a strategy of not-self becomes a means of dissociating from phenomena in order to rest in some unperturbed awareness

no different from brahman even if they do not call it by that name

this is 180 degrees different from buddhist insights into anatman, dependent origination and emptiness in some sense

a very common tendency in the thai forest tradition - see atr article "Seven Stages and Theravada (and other Buddhist traditions)?"" https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2021/09/seven-stages-and-theravada.html

...

yes and also check out my other article "Anatta: Not-Self or No-Self?", a separate article, different from the one on thanissaro http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2011/10/anatta-not-self-or-no-self_1.html

"Review complete

Jan 6, 2024

We restored your message

Hi Soh

We found that our technology made a mistake taking your post down.

Thank you for taking the time to request a review and helping us improve our systems. Our priority is keeping the community safe and respectful, so sometimes we have to take precautions.

You sent this in Awakening to Reality Chat

as for those that say buddha taught not self but not no self, i already explained why that is wrong in https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2011/10/anatta-not-self-or-no-self_1.html

Jan 6, 2024"

great its restored